Just found these three coins in a roll - 1958-D Lincoln Wheat Cent varieties

dcarr · September 2, 2013 10:51AM

1958-D, die break under chin (similar to the 1958-D Franklin recently posted):

1958-D, backwards "serif" on "1" (with strike doubling on date):

1958-D, 8/7 overdate (many 1958-D cents show some evidence of this overdate, but most don't show the diagonal lines in the lower loop of the 8):

Tdec1000 · September 2, 2013 10:59AM

Nice photos Dan!! Love the last one.

coinbuf · September 2, 2013 11:03AM

Cool!

keyman64 · September 2, 2013 11:04AM

The first one does nothing for me but the last two are REALLY COOL! Congrats on the finds! I had never heard of these before but of course I am not a Lincoln Cent person. I noticed they are not in the CPG..a backwards "1" and 8 over 7 seem pretty cool and significant to me! Any more info on them, value? Great pics!

AUandAG · September 2, 2013 11:16AM

Super cool and great pics!

bob

1tommy · September 2, 2013 11:47AM

Wow I am putting together a Goiter Set including the 1943 s Washington quarter and the two Franklins and now must Have that 58 d Variety. Thanks for sharing the pictures........Very Cool....Enjoy

2manycoins2fewfunds · September 2, 2013 11:53AM

<< 1958-D, die break under chin (similar to the 1958-D Franklin recently posted):

1958-D, backwards "serif" on "1" (with strike doubling on date):

1958-D, 8/7 overdate (many 1958-D cents show some evidence of this overdate, but most don't show the diagonal lines in the lower loop of the 8):

>>

2manycoins2fewfunds · September 2, 2013 11:55AM

<< 1958-D, die break under chin (similar to the 1958-D Franklin recently posted):

1958-D, backwards "serif" on "1" (with strike doubling on date):

1958-D, 8/7 overdate (many 1958-D cents show some evidence of this overdate, but most don't show the diagonal lines in the lower loop of the 8):

>>

...................................................................

Last is a beauty! Almost looks like 8 over 7 in last picture............

DCW · September 2, 2013 1:00PM

The 1958 over 7 cent has long been debunked, Dan.

keyman64 · September 2, 2013 1:23PM

Any more info on the backwards 1?

mariner67 · September 2, 2013 1:39PM

Thanks Dan for again sharing sone interesting stuff with us.

richbeat · September 2, 2013 3:52PM

<< Any more info on the backwards 1? >>

There is no serif on the one, so I would imagine that it is a small piece of the die missing, making it look like a backwards serif. Pretty cool!

baseballjeff · September 2, 2013 3:59PM

Those are cool. I think going for a set of Lincoln's could and would be so much fun.

Beautiful pictures!

dcarr · September 2, 2013 4:55PM

<< The 1958 over 7 cent has long been debunked, Dan. >>

As far as I'm concerned it hasn't.
I think at least one "1958" master hub was re-worked from a "1957" hub.
But the variety is not rare in any case, so either way the value is modest.

dcarr · September 2, 2013 4:56PM

<< 

<< Any more info on the backwards 1? >>

There is no serif on the one, so I would imagine that it is a small piece of the die missing, making it look like a backwards serif. Pretty cool!

>>

Correct - a die break that just happens to look like a backwards serif.

Justlooking · September 2, 2013 5:06PM

The "backwards" 1 is way cool. Nice.

oldsubguru · September 2, 2013 10:01PM

The 1958-D Lincoln cent with the supposed underlying 7 digit has been debunked. There was a time when we all thought that the digits in the date were placed on the master die by punching in the new date (the last one or two digits). This was a hold over from the time when the dates were placed into the master die by numeric punches. The last dates to be placed into a master die like this occurred in 1908, after that all dates were engraved into the master die.

There is a very slight possibility that the 1957 master hub that was used for making the 1958 master die did not have the last digit fully abraded. If that was possible then some parts of the 7 digit could have been left on the master hub and transferred to the master die which was then engraved with the 58 digits. However, a more logical explanation is that the anomaly seen is a die gouge that occurred on a working die that mimics the shape of a 7 digit.

The backwards 1 is a die chip on that digit that alters its appearance. All three of these anomalies would be considered errors since they were probably not on the working die when it was made. A variety is hub related, an error is not.

silverpop · September 3, 2013 12:21AM

nice

rmpsrpms · September 3, 2013 12:33AM

<< The 1958-D Lincoln cent with the supposed underlying 7 digit has been debunked. There was a time when we all thought that the digits in the date were placed on the master die by punching in the new date (the last one or two digits). This was a hold over from the time when the dates were placed into the master die by numeric punches. The last dates to be placed into a master die like this occurred in 1908, after that all dates were engraved into the master die.

There is a very slight possibility that the 1957 master hub that was used for making the 1958 master die did not have the last digit fully abraded. If that was possible then some parts of the 7 digit could have been left on the master hub and transferred to the master die which was then engraved with the 58 digits. However, a more logical explanation is that the anomaly seen is a die gouge that occurred on a working die that mimics the shape of a 7 digit.

The backwards 1 is a die chip on that digit that alters its appearance. All three of these anomalies would be considered errors since they were probably not on the working die when it was made. A variety is hub related, an error is not. >>

There are a number of working dies that have this anomaly, a few of which have some doubling showing on the 8 as well. Debunking is a favorite pastime of variety attributers but they generally don't all agree...

My personal favorite of these is the double-chin. I haven't seen this one before.

SkyMan · September 3, 2013 1:10AM

Nice!

Hyperion · September 3, 2013 1:23AM

coooooool! thanks for sharing. awesome pics!

JRocco · September 3, 2013 9:32AM

There are no over-dates in the Lincoln series.

FranklinFactory · September 3, 2013 10:29AM

That goiter is awesome!

rmpsrpms · September 3, 2013 11:43AM

<< There are no over-dates in the Lincoln series. >>

That may be true.

JRocco · September 3, 2013 12:21PM

<< 

<< There are no over-dates in the Lincoln series. >>

That may be true. >>

It is true that you can see a lot of things if you look hard enough.
Look at those Merc guys that see a 1936 over 1794 or whatever......

Why look at what appears to be a hidden 7 peeking out from behind the 5 in this nice 57 RPM
Is it an anomaly or maybe a dropped letter or maybe ?????

Overdate · September 3, 2013 3:01PM

<< There are no over-dates in the Lincoln series. >>

Are you sure?

ricko · September 4, 2013 12:00AM

Very interesting... thanks dcarr.... more to check for when I go through my wheaties... Cheers, RickO

spy88 · September 8, 2013 6:48AM

You are forcing me to look extra close at the one and only cent roll I happen to have.

oldsubguru · September 8, 2013 8:04AM

It is a questionable call to say that there are no over-dates in the Lincoln cent series. There are four well known small date / large date examples in the 1960 Lincoln cent. While the date has not changed in these examples, the style of the numerics has.

So, one must ask is an over-date confined to two different year dates on the same working die or can one call an over-date that has the same year except two different numeric styles on the same working die?

BJ Neff

CaptHenway · September 8, 2013 9:55AM

IMHO an "overdate" must contain elements of at least two different years. A "Large over Small Date" or vice versa is an interesting variety, but not an overdate.

There is an 1804 $5 with two noticeably different sized 8's in the date, but nobody calls it an overdate.

Overdate · September 9, 2013 8:18AM

<< IMHO an "overdate" must contain elements of at least two different years. A "Large over Small Date" or vice versa is an interesting variety, but not an overdate.

There is an 1804 $5 with two noticeably different sized 8's in the date, but nobody calls it an overdate. >>

I hereby call the 1804 small over large 8 $5 gold coin an overdate.

My apologies for doing that, but it's easier than changing my avatar.

1tommy · September 16, 2013 4:30AM

<< 

<< 1958-D, die break under chin (similar to the 1958-D Franklin recently posted):

Just wanted to Say thanks to Daniel for selling me the Goiter..........edited

johnny9434 · September 16, 2013 5:19AM

cool

Just found these three coins in a roll - 1958-D Lincoln Wheat Cent varieties

Comments

Leave a Comment